When a project becomes focused on throwing people under the bus instead of creating the best tools for people to use, it's time to jump ship. If any GNU developers are unhappy with the way things are, they are more than free to fork and walk away instead of wasting everyone's time.
> When a project becomes focused on throwing people under the bus instead of creating the best tools for people to use,
FSF has always been, and overtly so, about discouraging, preventing, and cancelling-by-social pressure tools with bad politics, not creating the best tools for people to use.
Discouraging people from using tools that restrict a persons freedom is not the same thing as removing an individual because of wrong think or personal grudges. The "canceled" tools are still there and available for anyone to use if they wish. If people don't want to have anything to do with RMS, they are more than free to do so.
I would argue that, for a time, the focus was to create tools that abide by an ideology AND are the best at what they do.
"Better police" does provide more "public safety". This argument has been used to create the system that we have now, caging people you don't like or don't look like you; it can never be "reformed" in any meaningful manner. I'd rather have a 20% greater chance of being randomly shot than to continue with this push for a system that cages people for victimless crimes or creates more criminals because Karens' across the country feel that they need to control everyone and everything. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves against any threats against themselves or their neighbors; this is not negotiable.
> caging people you don't like or don't look like you
This is such a toxic, false statement. It denies reality: people are getting jailed for their actions. Due process is still in effect, you understand; and if anything, far fewer people are jailed than probably should be due to overcrowding, high costs, etc. Recidivism rates are very high.
Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color. People are being jailed for committing crimes; and yes, these crimes are being disproportionately committed by some groups - as statistics have consistently shown for decades.
Statements like yours throw the entire justice system under the bus. You essentially call into question the entire appartatus that remains to protect normal folks in the burnt out husks of cities like Baltimore and Detroit.
> Karens' across the country feel that they need to control everyone and everything
Karen is an anti-white slur. "Karen" expects people to follow the rules and to be pro-social, and gets mad when they do not; this used to simply be good, mutual enforcement behaviour that everyone engaged in to keep people honest and to fight corruption. Stereotyping middleaged white women who simply want the process to be observed as written is offensive, and as sexist/racist as any other single term you could use these days.
Police need to enforce the laws in economically depressed neighborhoods where crime, gangs, and drugs are much more common. However, police are also abusive in that environment, and the criminal justice system perpetuates economic and social hardship in those neighborhoods by disrupting good home/family environments.
Both forces — neighborhood criminality and an overly harsh criminal justice system — work against true social justice. One of the worst consequences is poor psychosocial development in children growing up in that environment (constant stress and fear, broken families, etc). For a somewhat anecdotal view of this sociological phenomenon, see Alice Goffman's book _On the Run_ (she's the daughter of Erving Goffman).
>
Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color.
That is not the point. People should not have to sit in a cage and then be "judged" by a system that is no longer blind and is stacked against anyone who goes through it. How long do you want to sit in a cage for "something you did not do"? It's no longer about "justice" or "reform", it's about revenge and benefiting those who make it up.
>
Statements like yours throw the entire justice system under the bus. You essentially call into question the entire [apparatus] that remains to protect normal folks in the burnt out husks of cities like Baltimore and Detroit.
The system needs to be thrown out because of how it was created and what it has become. Instead of only being used to "reform" the most reprehensible individuals in society (violent crimes, theft, fraud), it has become a weapon for use against anyone the two parties did not like. First it was the racist Democrats who used it against those who did not look like them and then the fundie Republicans pushed it even further to use it as a tool for the things the church did not like. Many people sitting in jail right now should not be in jail because their "crimes" never affected anyone else or society at large.
>
Karen is an anti-white slur. "Karen" expects people to follow the rules and to be pro-social
Being a cunt is not limited to any one group or ethnicity. "Karen" is applicable to any busybody who should mind their own business and leave people alone.
>"Karen" is applicable to any busybody who should mind their own business and leave people alone.
If there was a meme name for an angry woman would you have an issue if it was a predominantly black woman name? There is a sterotype of the angry black woman, so even if you would be fine it would immediately be called racist.
> If there was a meme name for an angry woman would you have an issue if it was a predominantly black woman name?
This is a pretty ridiculous way of talking about this. Let's be concrete about it: if the name was "Shaniqua", we'd all know that it was intended to be insulting toward Black women, right? Are you implying I'd be okay with that one? I'm not.
"Karen" has evolved into being an anti-white slur, and I'm not okay with either option, nor any other slur of this sort. It degrades the conversation and makes it impossible to discuss actual problems that have highly predictable demographic correlations.
I either wasn't clear or you didn't read my post well. I agree with you. I think Karen is anti-white just like Shaniqua would be anti-black. I am against both.
> People should not have to sit in a cage and then be "judged"
Reads like the words of someone who has never experienced life in a high-crime area. Likely, your sentiment about this is entirely created by false premises, an illusion from Hollywood about the nobility of gangsters. Life is not like that. Scary, sociopathic or even psychopathic people abound; violence is a daily fact of life; everyone has a mugging story.
The vast majority of these people sitting in cages have broken the law. Do you remember the law? The list of things you may not do, the list of things you will be punished for doing. A 2-year-old can understand this: do bad thing, sit in the corner as punishment. I'm not sure what happens in the brain of a mature adult to make them forget these basic mechanics; it really feels like you must have been sold sob stories that make your mushy heart over-empathize with a media construct. In reality, there are people out there who will stab you for $20.
> Many people sitting in jail right now should not be in jail because their "crimes" never affected anyone else or society at large.
There are certainly some such people, but have you looked at the 'revolving door' phenomenon where police arrest people who are punted back out onto the street hours or days later? They learn that there is no real lasting consequence for their actions besides an uncomfortable few nights (albeit, out of the rain and cold, and with free food). There are not that many people who end up in prison for crimes that don't affect others - and when they are in jail for a minimal offense, oftentimes that's the only thing that police and prosecutors could concretely nail them on, despite knowing or believing that they're involved in far worse actions that they haven't been caught for.
The other thing is, many actions do affect society at large. Drug use does; advocates for Legalizing Everything pretend otherwise, but opiates have a massive effect that cannot be mitigated just by making them legal. The addiction doesn't go away; the cost of the drugs doesn't disappear; and the actual impact of being a junkie doesn't stop. You don't end up all-of-a-sudden being able to hold down a job reliably just because your risk of arrest goes away. You don't remove chances for fentanyl to kill people by turning a blind eye to the problem.
> it has become a weapon for use against anyone the two parties did not like.
Guess what, Yank; these problems exist outside of your country and your two-party bubble bullshit too. Every major city in the world faces these problems, in predictably direct proportions to demographic factors that may not be politely discussed. The problem is endemic, it's not a function of the system except to the extent that the system finds ways to profit off of corruption and drug money.
> Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color.
The extremely abbreviated way to make this point is to say "racism is over because Obama, and Kamala, and black faces in high places".
No, you're stuck at some kind of 2008 view on the topic.
The conclusion here is actually "these things are not caused by racism, because you can completely remove white people from the equation and yet the situation only ever gets worse".
Social policies combined with demographic realities are the proximate causes here. Continuing to paper over the latter with the former just entrenches the issue generationally.
What evidence do you have for "these things are not caused by racism, because you can completely remove white people from the equation and yet the situation only ever gets worse"?
"see what happens when white people are completely removed from the equation" is not an experiment that is possible to run.
So, no, you can't empirically do what you're saying you can do.
If you have a thought experiment or an approximation in mind, do share.
Here's a thought experiment: every judge, lawyer, jury member, and police officer is now black. If you think that is akin to white people disappearing, then we disagree. e.g. who wrote the laws? who stands to profit the most from incarceration?
The more pressing issue is the fact that critical tools that we depend upon are not properly funded or the incentive to properly maintain them is simply not there. Many of these projects were started as pet projects in peoples spare time. Sure, Google gives a lot of money and contributes to some of these projects but their contributions do not match how much they depend upon them. This is all compounded by the fact that Google is actively working to undermine many of these same projects because they can't get a license change or projects don't want to bend to their will.
Rewriting the world in Rust or other "memory safe" languages is not going to be the silver bullet that is being claimed. In the case of Rust, I am tired of people evangelizing it when it's plagued with issues that undermine its goals and rewrites will bring about more nasty bugs. "Unsafe" code will still need to be written and not being able to use or have stable toolchains to work with is a non-starter for a lot of projects. Until all of these languages have set standards and stable toolchains, hopefully the Rust Foundation will push, these languages are a non-starter.
While he had some controversial views and opinions, that's quite a blanketed statement. Painting everyone you don't like with arbitrary claims is not how you deal with polarizing individuals. I did not agree with him on ~70% of what he had to say but will defend the fact that a lot of things he said were taken out of context.
Such as? Every time I heard a Limbaugh quote that sounded absolutely outrageous, then listened to the audio in context, it was as bad if not worse than the summary.
Was broadcasting this to an audience of mostly old impressionable people who looked up to him 'taken out of context' as well?
Do you really think saying the below did not result in greater illness and/or death of at least some people and greater spread?
>RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.
OP was talking about "sowing hate"; the topic was not on unpopular opinions or view points. "...mostly old impressionable people" is a bit of an oxymoron; it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like.
>
RUSH: Folks, this coronavirus thing, I want to try to put this in perspective for you. It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump. Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. (interruption) You think I’m wrong about this? You think I’m missing it by saying that’s… (interruption) Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.
Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all.
>it's a bit arrogant that you would try to assert that "old" people are not capable of forming their own opinions or seeking out others. There will come a point in time where applying labels where they don't belong will no longer work to silence opposing views that you don't like.
It's a fact that older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people.
>Your quote from Rush is actually one of the few things that I actually agree with. The better response to this would have been to do absolutely nothing at all
Ironic given the above, because now you're saying it's worth killing a lot of old people for some economic gain, not to mention hospitals getting overloaded resulting in deaths of younger people from road accidents and other treatable illnesses etc.
The link you provided does not support your statement.
It is about financial scams, and not disinformation per se. Specifically it reports, "Older adults were the least likely of any age group to report losing money to scams. But when older consumers experience consumer fraud, their reported financial losses were greater than what younger consumers reported.".
They also report on the specific scams older people tend to fall prey to, namely: "older adults were more likely than younger consumers to report losing money on tech support scams, prize, sweepstakes & lottery scams, and family & friend impersonation. Phone scams did the most financial damage. And while gift cards became the payment of choice for scammers, wire transfers still take the top spot for total dollars paid.".
How did you generalize all of this into saying that "older people tend to fall victim to false information disproportionately at higher rates than younger people."? Do you have direct evidence for that?
I think we have to be careful when trying to paint an entire group of people in this discriminatory way, especially without evidence, which is probably what parent comment was getting at.
>
Ironic given the above, because now you're saying it's worth killing a lot of old people for some economic gain, not to mention hospitals getting overloaded resulting in deaths of younger people from road accidents and other treatable illnesses etc.
It's not "...worth killing a lot of old people for some economic gain..." and it was never about that. The unintended consequences of this circus brought on by both parties has resulted in more death. We've allowed politicians and prominent figures to make negligent decisions that have resulted in deaths that could have been prevented.
People die from a wide range of things, some preventable and some not so much. Keeping everyone inside and preventing them from socializing has resulted in more deaths than a virus with a significantly low mortality rate. Why don't we shut the world down for other causes of death that have been happening in greater numbers? The sensible thing would have been to isolate populations with compromised immune systems and maybe make vitamin D supplementation a priority.
I hope freedom of speech and expression does not die with him. He and many others were important in standing up against the fundies and various groups that wanted to the limit the rights that we take for granted today. If you have not seen it yet, I recommend watching “The People Vs. Larry Flynt”.
I hope freedom of speech and expression does not die with him. He and many others were important in standing up against the fundies and various groups that wanted to the limit the rights that we take for granted today. If you have not seen it, I recommend watching “The People Vs. Larry Flynt”.
>
How about nobody burns down anything? Can we manage that? Yes, even if a big fat meanie is president.
I think you might be asking too much of people here. They can't seem to help themselves. Censorship and violence is OK when their people do it under the guise of cause X but it's not OK when other people do the exact same thing.
